BHOGENDRAJHA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a returned candidate to the 10th Lok Sabha from 13, Madhubani Parliamentary Constituency in Bihar. The last date for filing nominations for the Lok Sabha Elections was April 26, 1991. The date of scrutiny was April 27, 1991. Out of 61 candidates who filed nomination, three nomination papers of Pawan Kumar Pathak, P. W. 4, Lal Bahadur Singh, P.W. 6 and another came to be rejected by the Returning Officer during scrutiny. Poll was held on May 23, 1991. Out of 49 candidates who remained in the contest, the appellant had secured 3,30,111 votes, i.e. 51.91 percent, as against the nearest candidate Dr. Jagannath Misra who secured 2,50,020, i.e., 39.31%. Rest of the candidates could not even protect their deposits. The respondent-Manoj Kumar Jha, an elector filed the election petition impugning rejection of the nominations of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 as bad in law. The High Court in the impugned judgment has upheld his contention and declared the election of the appellant as void in E.P.A. No. 7/1991 dated August 25, 1995 by Patna High Court.

(2.) In this appeal, the only question is:whether the view of the High Court that the Returning Officer had not conducted summary enquiry under S.36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act') is correct in law It is seen that even Pawan Kumar Pathak (P.W. 4) and Lal Bahadur Singh, P.W. 6 did not feel aggrieved against the rejection of the nominations as they did not file election petitions though they were examined on behalf of the respondent as witnesses. The appellant, admittedly, was not and could not present himself at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and rejection of the nominations. He did not know what had transpired at the time of scrutiny and rejection of the nomination. As regards P.W. 4, Pawan Kumar Pathak, the orders of rejection read thus:

(3.) As regards P.W. 6, it was rejected for the reason given thus: